Monday, September 08, 2014

Iraq snapshot

Monday, September 8, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, a UN official seems confused as to how Iraqi children die (Nouri could explain it to her, the executioner usually knows all), Haider al-Abadi has become the new Prime Minister of Iraq, a number disgrace themselves trying to scare the American people, and more.

Ban Ki-moon is the United Nations Secretary-General. Today, his office issued the following statement:

The Secretary-General welcomes today’s announcement of the
formation of a new inclusive Government in Iraq and congratulates Haider
al-Abadi on his confirmation as Iraq's Prime Minister. At this
challenging moment for Iraq and the region, today's decision by the
Iraqi Council of Representatives is a positive step towards political
stability and peace in the country. The Secretary-General
calls on all Iraqi political leaders to build on the current momentum of
collaboration to ensure that a decision is made without delay on the
pending appointments of Minister of Defence and Minister of Interior.

The Secretary-General hopes that the ministerial programme approved
today will be implemented in a timely manner, taking into account the
needs of all Iraqi communities. The Secretary-General pays tribute to
outgoing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his leadership in this time
of transition. The United Nations looks forward to working with the new
Government of Iraq in its efforts to serve all Iraq's communities while
confronting major challenges.

SECRETARY KERRY:Good afternoon, everybody. Tonight we mark
what is unquestionably a major milestone for Iraq, and what President
Obama has made clear will be a cornerstone of our efforts against ISIL.Just a few hours ago, overcoming the obstacle of ethnic and sectarian
divides, the Iraqi parliament approved a new and inclusive government,
one that has the potential to unite all of Iraq’s diverse communities
for a strong Iraq, a united Iraq, and to give those communities the
chance to build the future that all Iraqis desire and deserve.Now is the time for Iraq’s leaders to govern their nation with the
same vision and sense of purpose that helped to bring this new
government together in the first place. And in that effort, they should
know the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqis
as they implement their national plan to overcome the longstanding
political and economic grievances that have for too long divided their
country.

Tonight Iraq has a unity government. Tomorrow I will travel to the
Middle East to continue to build the broadest possible coalition of
partners around the globe to confront, degrade, and ultimately defeat
ISIL.

Anyone who's read this site for even a little bit should know that thug and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is someone who I feel did great harm to Iraq and bred the current crises in the country.

So I'm thrilled Nouri's gone -- officially. And here's another opinion on Nouri, Tim Arango of the New York Times:

The U.S. basically chose Nuri Kamal al-Maliki,
whose sectarian politics alienated many Sunnis, creating the fertile
ground for ISIS to sweep into these areas. And many of those Maliki
policies that have pushed aside the Sunnis were started by the
Americans. Excluding Sunnis from political life? That has its origins in
the American de-Baathification policy. Mr. Maliki’s security policy of
conducting mass arrests of Sunni men in the name of fighting terrorism?
The U.S. did that too. So at every turn in the Iraq story now, you see
the American legacy at play.

While I'm glad Nouri is officially out, it's sad that the Iraqi Constitution has yet to be honored.

Haider al-Abadi's done better than anyone so far -- well, better than Nouri in 2006 and Nouri in 2010. But he didn't form a Cabinet -- that would mean a full Cabinet.

There is no Minister of Defense. There is no Minister of the Interior.

EFE notes that "the Defense and Interior portfolios will remain vacant due to
disagreements regarding the candidates, said Al-Abadi, who will make new
proposals to fill the posts to Parliament in a week."

That's not a full Cabinet.

The Constitution has one rule for how a person moves from prime minister-designate to prime minister: Form a Cabinet in 30 days.

Not a partial Cabinet.

People can pretend all they want.

I'm thrilled Nouri is not prime minister. But I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended the Constitution was being followed.

Credit to Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) for noting that the Cabinet is missing two posts:But Abadi put off until next week a vote on the two top security posts after members of parliament complained that they knew little about his proposed defense minister, Khalid al Ubaidi, a Sunni who is a former military officer but about whom little else was known.
Abadi’s nominee as interior minister, Hadi al Ameri, also is likely to prove controversial. Ameri heads the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia group with close ties to Iran. When it was known as the Badr Brigades, the group fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and Ameri’s presence in such a sensitive position _ the Interior Ministry is responsible for Iraq’s police forces _ is likely to rankle many Sunnis.

The inability to successfully name people to the two posts wasn't surprising. Over ten hours before the 8:00 pm (Baghdad time) vote, Alsumaria reported a spokesperson for the Sadr bloc had announced that no vote would take place on the nominees for Minister of the Interior and for
Minister of Defense.

We noted last week that he was up for one of the three posts of Vice President of Iraq. Over the weekend, a flurry of rumors insisted he was refusing the nomination -- some rumors even insisted his health was causing him to refuse.

Nouri didn't refuse the nomination and, today, he was voted into office. National Iraqi News Agency reports the Parliament voted -- majority vote -- to name Nouri, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi to be the three vice presidents of Iraq.

Let's move from the Iraqi Parliament over to the US Congress which will no doubt rush to provide legal cover for Barack's actions in Iraq. Patricia Zengerle and David Lawder (Reuters) report:U.S. President Barack Obama
is expected to pursue a military campaign against Islamic State
without seeking special congressional authority now but
lawmakers said on Monday they would probably approve any request
he made for extra funding.They said there was widespread support in Congress for
attacks to stop the advance of the Sunni Islamist militant
group, especially after the videotaped beheading of two American
journalists by the Islamist group in the last three weeks.

Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) add, "Top House Republican aides said Monday night that based on conversations
with White House aides, they do not expect Obama to seek formal
authorization. Top House GOP leaders also do not expect to be bringing
any such legislation to the floor in the coming days, said the aides,
who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to speak
publicly on the matter."

The White House issued the following statement today:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 08, 2014

Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Regarding Iraq

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

As I reported on August 8 and 17 and on
September 1, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces have conducted targeted airstrikes
in Iraq for the limited purposes of stopping the advance on Erbil by
the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
supporting civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar, supporting operations by
Iraqi forces to recapture the Mosul Dam, and supporting an operation to
deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the town of Amirli,
Iraq.

On September 6, 2014, pursuant to my
authorization, U.S. Armed Forces commenced targeted airstrikes in the
vicinity of the Haditha Dam in support of Iraqi forces in their efforts
to retain control of and defend this critical infrastructure site from
ISIL. These additional military operations will be limited in their
scope and duration as necessary to address this threat and prevent
endangerment of U.S. personnel and facilities and large numbers of Iraqi
civilians.

I have directed these actions, which
are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign
relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. These actions
are being undertaken in coordination with and at the request of the
Iraqi government. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to
keep the

Congress fully informed, consistent
with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the
support of the Congress in this action.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Congress, if the record of the last sixty or so years hold, will vote to back Barack if asked to do so. There would be some criticism but most would go along.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote in an op-ed published Monday
that the United States "must lead an aggressive, international effort
to confront and eliminate" the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that includes sustained airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote in USA Today that the threat posed by ISIS to the U.S. "cannot be overstated."

Oh, Dianne, I think it can be overstated and, clearly, it can even be overstated by you.

Just last week, someone who presumably would know the power and reach of the Islamic State offered a different assessment than Dianne. RIA Novosti reported:

Speaking at a Brookings Institution Intelligence Project event, US
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen said this
Wednesday that despite the growing strength of ISIS, there is no
evidence of a direct threat to the continental United States.“At this point, we have no credible information that ISIS is planning to attack the United States,” Olsen told attendees.Olsen noted that despite the IS’s growing threat to US interests, Al-Qaeda remains the most serious terror threat, given its global presence.

If someone could stop Dianne from running in circles and re-attach her head to her body, she might grasp what Olsen was saying.

Crazy Dianne should be in a rest home enjoying her final years. Instead, her faltering memory and diminished capacities go unnoticed by most of the public and won't be remarked on by the media unless/until she angers one of the big money lobbies she has made her career bowing too.

Not everyone's so stupid. Senator Mark Udall told the truth. His thanks?

CNN's Ashley Killough reports he's had to apologize for a statement:In his statement Monday, Udall said his "intent was to emphasize the
importance of taking the right next steps as we confront this serious
threat."Udall, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and
Intelligence committees, also has received criticism for arguing that
ISIS is not "an immediate threat to the homeland."His views are
at odds with a majority of the country. According to a new CNN/ORC
International poll, seven in 10 Americans believe ISIS has the resources
to launch an attack against the U.S.

I can't endorse Mark for re-election because my rule is I don't endorse anyone I can't vote for. I live in California so Colorado really doesn't need to know who I'd vote for. They'll make up their own minds as they should.

But I can say, on the apology, that's nonsense. It's a nonsense issue being used to attack Mark.

And in Colorado or outside of Colorado, you can applaud Mark Udall for telling the truth. He tells the truth when so few even try.

CNN cites a poll about how Mark's views are at odds with the general public.

Would that be the case had CNN (and others) not spent hour after hour with alarmist propaganda passed off as news?

If the media hadn't enlisted in the fear campaign, those numbers wouldn't have shot up.

So people who care about the truth in the United States should be applauding Mark Udall. For those who live in Colorado, doesn't mean you have to vote for him. Should, however, mean you make a point to defend him.

It's rare for anyone in the US right now -- in or out of Congress -- to point out that the Islamic State is not Napolean's army, let alone Nazi Germany.

Instead, we get 'experts.'

Sudden experts apparently.

Former US House Rep Jane Harman offers a column at CNN which opens, "President Barack Obama has properly decided to go to Congress and then the American people this week to reveal his strategy
to degrade and destroy ISIS. To paraphrase former White House Chief of
Staff Rahm Emanuel, this is a crisis the President should not waste. How
individual members of Congress respond to this call should matter and
should be a 2014 election issue -- the duck and blame game stops here."

Is Jane like a chicken with her head cut off?

No, Jane's just a War Hawk that never met a war she couldn't get to at least third base with.

It's really hilarious that Jane wants to insist today that members of Congress should be held accountable by how they vote -- if there's a vote -- on Iraq. That certainly wasn't her position when she sat in Congress. Harman voted for the Iraq War and being a Democrat from California, she spun madly to justify that vote when the war went so bad that even most members of the media could no longer pretend that things were great, really great.

We are glad that the president has come around to a more sober view. But
if he is truly committed to the group’s defeat, certain things must
follow from that determination. First, the objective — victory — must
determine the strategy, tactics and schedule. Heretofore, Mr. Obama has
had an unfortunate tendency to do things the other way round: to view
military conflict as something to be carried out according to a
schedule, whereby U.S. forces must be withdrawn on a particular date,
whether their goals were lastingly achieved or not. He has described his
country as tired of war, and, in multiple instances, ruled out certain
means — ground forces especially — before anyone has even asked for
them. He wishfully mused that the tide of war had “receded.”
Now, if Mr. Obama believes that the destruction of the Islamic State is
essential to U.S. security, he must commit to that goal and fashion
whatever strategy is necessary to achieve it.

Islamic fighters in Iraq have
killed hundreds of children including in summary executions and used
some as suicide bombers, the top UN envoy on children and armed conflict
said Monday.

"Up to 700
children have been killed or maimed in Iraq since the beginning of the
year, including in summary executions," Leila Zerrougui told the UN
Security Council.

What is the rate for whoring?

I hope Leila was paid well.

Nouri's government has been killing children for some time -- UNICEF even established that Iraqi forces killed 8 children in the massacre in Hawaija last year.

And just this weekend, Hawajia was back in the news. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reported civilians
were killed in airstrikes in Abbai, Tal Ali and Hawija. Hawija found the
Iraq and US military -- and let's be clear, it's both -- bombing a
hospital resulting in 18 deaths -- "Eight of the fatalities were
newborns housed in a premature baby wing that collapsed due to the
strike."

He was killed in Samarra by the Iraqi army when they fired into a crowd of civilians.

Two other children were left injured.

This is why so few people take the United Nations seriously.

You get some fat, lying, hypocritical ass blathering on about some group, some minor group, while refusing to call out the crimes against civilians carried out by a government.

It's craven and it's cowardly and it's, sadly, become the hallmark of the Ban Ki-moon era of the United Nations. His second term will soon be over and it's been a term with little bravery and little accomplishment.

He's not the only leader on the world stage who should be embarrassed.

Wednesday, US President Barack Obama is finally supposed to explain his plan or 'plan' for Iraq to the American people.

Iraq War veteran and March Forward activist Mike Prysner raises a very pertinent question.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.